Femme Fatalities Message Board

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_pornography

"Extreme pornography" is a term introduced by the UK Government in Part 5, Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008,[1] which made possession of such images a criminal offence from 26 January 2009.[2][3] It refers to pornography, defined as an image "of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal", which is "grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character", and portrays any of the following:

(a) an act which threatens a person’s life,
(b) an act which results, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals,
(c) an act which involves or appears to involve sexual interference with a human corpse,
(d) a person performing or appearing to perform an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive),
and a reasonable person looking at the image would think that any such person or animal was real.

The term covers staged acts, and applies whether or not the participants consent.[4][5] Classified works are exempt, but an extract from a classified work, if the image was extracted for the purpose of sexual arousal, would not be exempt. Whether an image is "pornographic" or not is up to the magistrate or jury to determine simply by looking at the image; it is not a question of the intentions of those who produced the image.[6] If an image is held in a person's possession as part of a larger series of images, the question of whether it is pornographic is also determined by the context in which it appears. Therefore an image might be legal in some contexts, but not in other contexts. Serious injury is not defined by the act, but is up to the magistrate or jury.[6] The bill gives examples of acts which would be covered: depictions of hanging, suffocation, or sexual assault involving a threat with a weapon; the insertion of sharp objects into or the mutilation of breasts or genitals.[7]

The definition of "obscene" is not the same as that used in the Obscene Publications Acts, which requires that an image "deprave and corrupt" those likely to view it; instead this is the ordinary dictionary definition of "obscene". "Grossly offensive" and "disgusting" are given as examples of "obscene".[6]

[and so on]


Dennis

More:

Sites labelled as "extreme pornography"
Examples of Internet sites accessed by Graham Coutts include "necrobabes" "deathbyasphyxia" and "hanging bitches".

Necrobabes
Necrobabes is a website hosting images of women pretending to be dead.[37] The site is subtitled "erotic horror for adults". Necrobabes was included as an example of a site that relatives of Jane Longhurst, who was murdered by Graham Coutts, thought should be banned.

Membership of Necrobabes was used as evidence in the murder trial of Patrick Anthony Russo, a Texas Church leader, who murdered Diane Holik in 2001. During the subsequent police investigation it was found out that Russo had been a paying subscriber to Necrobabes. Partly because of his Necrobabes membership and other evidence found from his computer, including browser history and web searches for "asphyx", Russo was found guilty of strangling Holik to death.[38][39] [40] Russo was given a life sentence.

However, the site owners assert "The material we produce is fanciful, even cartoonish in many regards; there is nothing realistic about it. Our viewers know this. Far from normalizing violence, it relegates it squarely into the realm of fantasy." It states that scenes are simulated, and that no one was harmed during the making of our photo stories and videos. They claim that, contrary to the aforementioned petition, they "do not encourage nor condone real-life violence against others". The site states that there is no pornography on the site, and claims that it is exempt from the recordkeeping requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 2257, because there are no images of actual sexually explicit conduct.

The site is registered with the ICRA so that it can be blocked by Microsoft Internet Explorer's Parental Controls.[41] As of October 2009, the site's contents are unavailable.[42]

How depressing...

Now Dennis my love I am planning to produce this kind of film very soon:

I recenly did a studo recording of the final bars of Puccini's Madama Butterfly.

I did a similar version for you in me "Dreams" series, but I plan to do the real Butterfly scene, with the self gutting as we all want to see it, yet it will be opera and I will be singing it.

Would the British Governemt call this obscene?

Also: I know you have seen this before but perhaps others have not.

This is my Dido's Lament

http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?eimujkhmdmn

I have it up at mdediafire free for the community as an example of my art.

Do the British find this obscene???

Where is the line drawn between art and obsenity, or is it just that a bunch of gay British politicians who are too afraid to come out of the closet get to decide that for an entire nation??

Baci

Dalila,

This law is limited to the UK and no other countries seem to be following it's direction, mainly since it limits one's thoughts with Jail time; Three years in jail for possession and Six years for a webmaster (Distributor) - in or out of the UK.

Your work is virtually legal worldwide sans the UK.

The reason I posted it, it seemed the 'Porn' thread was going in this territory.

Something to read:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04/25 ... reme_pron/

Dennis

Hi Dennis,

I think I understand that, and I am glad to know thta I am legal everywhere else

My argument specificlaly with "Dido's Lament" is this:

I as Dalila di Capri the well known erotic horror actress am known for really effective belly stabbings follwed by long lingering deaths etc.

Yet in the case of Dido's lament we are speaking of Britain's most beloved Opera composer
(My personal favorite English Composer BTW, which is why I filmed the scene.)

Now there is no getting around the fact that Queen Dido picks up a nasty dagger (a pointy one at that ) sticks it in her belly and sings a long slow death aria.

I didn't make that up. Henry Purcell took that from the ancient myth. That music is a 300 year old classic work of art.

So can the English take my version of this well loved opera scene and call it obscene just because I am the person who filmed it?

Would they be able to say "Dalila may be able to sing this aria but because she is a well known erotic horror star she can't sell her version of this scene in England because we (the gay barristers who wear ladies wigs) will think it obscene"?

I ask to see if we can get some understanding of just how much impunity these British officials have. (I also wonder what they wear under those robes. Sexy garter belts perhaps?)

Baci (mille per te)

Hi Dalila,

I am of the opinion that the law is mostly unenforceable and how they apply logic to legal decisions, I have no clue.

I have been fighting this along with the Brits since it was proposed years ago and have reams of data on it. On the bottom line, I really don't take much of it seriously due to the absurd nature of actual enforcement and prosecution.

As far as your work and the rest of the producers, I would pay no attention to it, just don't be a webmaster or do ANY movies in the UK. I just bring up the extreme interpretation of 'Porn' where it actually ascended into law. The 'Porn' thread kept touching on this 'thought' logic too many times and decided to post this.

Dennis

For Evangelene:

Thank you from the bottom of my heart.

There is nothing so gratifying as praise from another actress.

I really still very much hope that we can work together next year as we've talked about on and off.

For Dennis:

The absurdity of this is exactly why I joke about gay barristers. (I think I saw a Monty Python skit once that was just that concept )

I am a sexy woman, and that is one of God's gifts. So is Evevangelene, Petra, Suzi, Karyn, Paola, Britton, Velvet, Debbie D, Kelli....

If some call our sexiness "porn" oh well I can live with the label.

Part of my point is that something can be highly erotic and beautifully artistic at the same time.

A woman's body is a work of art.

My curves, my naturally full behind, or Evangelene's elegant long lithe figure, as examples, are part of nature's beauty, no less profane than The Swiss Alps, or Niagra Falls, or the Grand Canyon.

So if I am performing something wherein I KNOW I am using the power of my sex appeal, yes some may call it porn. But is it obscene?

Eventually it becomes an issue of whether the person wants to judge or not.

You know that I love to gut myself, Dennis. We have spoken privately about that a number of times. I think that a beautiful woman left completely unmarked except for her guts haging out of her belly is very sexy, very artistic, very poweful, and I recognize that it is also very extreme.

There are other fetishes that do nothing for me. I am not however in the business of judging them to be obscene.

Countless women love the idea of being "raped" by their husbands or boyfriends.

Is this sick or twisted? I say no. Others would perhaps say yes.

Does a "rape" fantasy between consenting couple hurt anyone?

No

Does a film made by that same loving couple shown to others make someone really rape another person?

I say not unless that person was a rapist to begin with.

Now if perhaps we were a little bit more honest about the more violent aspects of our sexuality perhaps we could discuss all of these things in public and guide people toward positive expressions of these feelings in art and entertainment.

My Dido video is artistic. It's also a sexy stabbing scene.
So far this particular post of it has been downloaded 2,400 plus times. This means that some 2,400 people have seen an opera performance of mine wherein I sing one of my signature roles, stab myself in an erotic yet tragic and moving way, and attempt to elevate erotic horror while at the same time showing those who would not normally watch opera that it is indeed a thrilling form of entertainment when done correctly.

So I ask the Gay British Barristers with the garterbelts under their robes

Should my Dido film be banned in Great Britain for being obscene???


Baci

From Dalila:
I am a sexy woman, and that is one of God's gifts. So is Evevangelene, Petra, Suzi, Karyn, Paola, Britton, Velvet, Debbie D, Kelli....

All would be certainly banned and arrested for being 'Extreme Porn' - it doesn't have to be violent to be 'extreme porn' it can be a statue, painting, extremely good looking, and so on. You all don't dare go there, and consider all the Brit Females that will be forced to take refuge in the US in fear of prosecution. Oh..... I have lots of extra bedrooms and baths to do my part in keeping these women safe from jail!! - I will gut them later to make room for more.....yes I will film them-

Dennis

Dennis, just how big is that gutting facility of yours out there???

Personally I think that my trademark sneer all by itself could very well be banned as Obscene by Great Britain.

Baci

Dalila di Capri wrote:Dennis, just how big is that gutting facility of yours out there???

Personally I think that my trademark sneer all by itself could very well be banned as Obscene by Great Britain.

Baci

Dalila, my gutting facility has more than enough room for a place for you. If I were you, I would come by (alone) and check it out!

If you were in the UK you would be doing lots of jail time with your trademark sneer or not. Just your avatar alone is way illegal!

Dennis

Hi All,

I have stated my position on the UK law before, but probably not on FF. We must remember to read the entire definition... especially the last factor that must exist for the subject-matter to be considered extreme pornography and therefore outlawed in Britain.

As Dennis quite rightly stated above, "extreme pornography" is defined in the UK legislation as an image "of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal", which is "grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character", and portrays any of the following:

(a) an act which threatens a person’s life,
(b) an act which results, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals,
(c) an act which involves or appears to involve sexual interference with a human corpse,
(d) a person performing or appearing to perform an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive),

and a reasonable person looking at the image would think that any such person or animal was real.

The 'and' clearly means that this final phrase is a necessary element of the offence. I have received a legal opinion on this matter. So, it is irrelevant whether the other elements such as "serious injury" to the "genitals" exist in a video, if a reasonable person looking at the image would not think that the scene was real. So, we are talking snuff films and apparent snuff films here. Dalila's beautiful, artistic videos and my Silk Videos are clearly NOT apparent snuff films. Accordingly, our videos are completely legal in the UK and worldwide. That is my considered opinion, and I am firmly convinced that no one can be convicted for merely possessing such videos.

All of which is respectfully submitted!

Barrister Blue
(P.S. No. There are no garters under my robe )

I have seriously proposed to several producers that all models should wear "elf ears" or "Star Trek Vulcan ears" in order to make it blatantly obvious to anyone that it is NOT REAL, and clearly a fantasy play. So far, nobody wants to gamble on that joke.................elsullo

Apart from being stupid and ill conceived the law is effectively unenforceable. Indeed I believe a Government spokesman has said that there are no plans to actively seek enforcement, as is done with child porn, but, instead, it may be invoked if "someone's behaviour gave cause for concern". In other words, I think, to deal with the likes of Graham Coutts whose fantasies were translated into reality. Those of us who stick to fantasy (and I hope that includes everyone here) should be untroubled.

This was yet another newspaper crusade that the government listened to. There are so many stuffy types out there that can't see that if 2 or more consenting adults are enjoying something and are not forcing others to watch, then it should be left alone, what gives them the right to decide ?

Bluestone wrote:... and portrays any of the following:

I fear you are in error Bluestone. The wording does not state that it must include 'all' of the following, just anything in that list. The 'and' you refer to is only a rejoinder for point (d), and does not apply to points (a), (b) or (c). Therefor if 'any' of (a), (b) or (c) also apply, the work would fall under the purvey of this law.

Note that the degree of artistry is utterly irrelevant. It has been stated in examples as to how this law aught be enforced, that while the Hitchcock film Psycho would not be considered to violate this law as it was not produced with the intent to excite sexually, if a person were to capture just the shower scene so they could watch it over and over on their computer, they would be guilty of violating this law. They use this as an example!

This law is not so much a law against specific sorts of scenes. They have no intent of prosecuting the producers of CSI for having a naked female corpse being poked and prodded. It is more a law against those who would use such scenes for their own erotic stimulation. So that same CSI scene in the possession of someone who had similar such scenes in a collection, would make them in violation of this law. The law is a matter of policing the intent of people, in effect the thoughts of people. They wish to make 'people' who think these thoughts illegal, so they can be locked up.